NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[canpakes]

Hunter Biden Prosecutor Claims He Was Not Allowed to Charge First Son Outside of Delaware and Was Denied Special Counsel Status by DOJ


Story by Connor Surmonte • Yesterday 6:30 PM
Radar Online
Hunter Biden Prosecutor Claims He Was Not Allowed to Charge First Son Outside of Delaware and Was Denied Special Counsel Status by DOJ

Federal prosecutor David C. Weiss allegedly told six witnesses that he did not have the authority to charge Hunter Biden outside of Delaware, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Is there a procedurally normal, non-conspiratorial reason for this ‘denial’, I wonder?

Weiss also reportedly told the witnesses that he was denied special counsel status by the Department of Justice.

Why would that be needed? Serious question.

“He then shocked us with the earth-shattering news that the Biden-appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves would not allow him to charge in his district,” Shapley continued.

Hmm. Earth-shattering? Well, that sounds very dramatic.

Shapley also alleged to the House committee that Weiss was not allowed to charge Hunter for several suspected crimes committed in 2014 and 2015, including “foreign income from Burisma” …

Is earning ‘foreign income’ a chargeable offense? Asking in case my Serbian Essential Oils subsidiary takes off.

…and “a scheme to evade his income taxes through a partnership with a convicted felon.”

Was the intent to charge him for scheming to evade taxes, or for evading taxes? When worded this way, isn’t this what most businesses strive to do via accountants and lawyers anyway?

And is ‘a partnership with a convicted felon’ a crime in and of itself?

Gotta admit, I certainly appreciate the lengths that some sources will go to use language seemingly designed to force a particular conclusion from a particular audience.

[Doctor Steuss]

Federal prosecutor David C. Weiss allegedly told six witnesses that he did not have the authority to charge Hunter Biden outside of Delaware, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Is there a procedurally normal, non-conspiratorial reason for this ‘denial’, I wonder?

Based on where the gun was disposed of (Janssen's Market), I'm assuming Hunter was a resident of Delaware when the crimes were committed. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I assume it's generally commonplace that crimes are charged in the district in which they occur. I am guessing this is why Trump is being charged in the Southern District of Florida rather than in liberal DC or New York.

I imagine if the crimes occurred in a different district, it would have been a totally different DA than Wiess. I guess conservatives won the lottery that Hunter did these particular deeds under the jurisdiction of a Trump DA.

--------------
Question for our resident lawyers (this might be out of anyone's expertise to answer, though): If a DA uncovers something during an investigation, that occurred outside of their district, do they then refer it out to that particular DA, or are they able (since they are feds) to just wrap it into what they are already doing?

[Gadianton]

I've put a little time into this, but we're dealing with information fragments. I'd like to have better understanding before posting but I'm hitting the wall of diminishing returns and so here's the best I've got for a first draft.

First of all, politifact summary:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023 ... -what-irs/

I believe the leftist Times has a segment on it today but I can't access it. All other sources I have are right-wing sources. The far-right Federalist helped clarify an important point and I urge everyone to read their account here:

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/26/ir ... authority/

Either Weiss lied to his top investigators, or Weiss and Garland deceived Congress. There’s no other way around it.

There actually is more than one way around it, however, they do clarify an important point: the "shocking" claims are being made by a couple of the investigators (mainly one?), not by Trump-appointee Weiss himself. Since Weiss is the one who was "stonewalled", it's going to be quite a long discovery process if Weiss isn't presently claiming to have been stonewalled and offering up evidence that Garland or others stonewalled him.

It's Gary Shapley who is saying that Weiss said things like "I am not the deciding person on whether charges are filed" (not, "God Damn it! These Dems' are blocking everything we've got!", by the way). And this is from an email written by himself as a summary of the meeting.

The big contradiction right now is that Garland recently said that Weiss has full power to file charges where ever he wants. Shapely is saying that Weiss said that somebod(y)(ies) had him convinced he didn't have authority to file charges, but that wasn't necessarily Garland.

There's some cry-fest over the fact that they were almost out of time for one of the charges, (7-year?) statutes would expire in a month, and the delay put them over the line. Well, they had an entire Trump presidency plus 2-3 years to bring charges and so things not falling into place for them in the last month doesn't equal a conspiracy on its face. If they'd been trying for a couple years to bring the charges it would be more suspicious.

My guess with the very limited information available right now is that at the very worst, multiple parties acted "politically" on their own on several matters to deter Weiss and Weiss didn't exactly fight with the conviction this Shapely guy is brimming with to move the ball forward. There's a lot of work to do to identify those who Shapely alleges told Weiss that he didn't have authority, and the circumstances and substance of those communications.

[ceeboo]

So, we have the Attorney General saying one thing, and a pair of supposed IRS whistleblowers saying another thing. Weiss won't comment on any of it, naturally, given that he has said the investigation is ongoing (which begs the question, why would the investigation be ongoing if it's supposedly being squashed by the DOJ?). Garland has also publicly stated that the DOJ will not block Weiss from testifying before Congress once the investigation is over, if Weiss chooses to, and that Weiss hasn't approached him asking for any increased investigative powers/status/name.

Sounds to me like the so-called whistleblowers might be blowing a bit more than whistles.

Someone is lying indeed.

I really hope you're right (honest to God).

As I see it, if the two FBI whistleblowers are lying, we have is a couple of right-wing politically motivated former FBI agents that should absolutely be held accountable. If they are not lying . . .

[Doctor Steuss]

Weiss has responded to Jordan's last letter. Cliff Notes: Trumpist Republicans and the so-called whistleblowers are just making stuff up again. (Letter Link)

So, either we now have yet another Trump appointed Republican who is actually part of the deep state, or...

[Res Ipsa]

So, we have the Attorney General saying one thing, and a pair of supposed IRS whistleblowers saying another thing. Weiss won't comment on any of it, naturally, given that he has said the investigation is ongoing (which begs the question, why would the investigation be ongoing if it's supposedly being squashed by the DOJ?). Garland has also publicly stated that the DOJ will not block Weiss from testifying before Congress once the investigation is over, if Weiss chooses to, and that Weiss hasn't approached him asking for any increased investigative powers/status/name.

Sounds to me like the so-called whistleblowers might be blowing a bit more than whistles.

Someone is lying indeed.

I really hope you're right (honest to God).

As I see it, if the two FBI whistleblowers are lying, we have is a couple of right-wing politically motivated former FBI agents that should absolutely be held accountable. If they are not lying . . .

Hey Ceebs,

I think it's likely more complicated than that. From what I've read, I think there's a pretty good chance that Shapely and unnamed person he supervised at the IRS had bought in to the conspiracy theory that the deep state was covering up crimes committed by the Biden Crime family at the start of their part of the investigation. When human brains buy in to a conspiracy theory, the way they perceive reality can become very distorted. The brain reinterprets evidence against the theory as evidence of a broader and stronger conspiracy. That would explain some odd things like Shapely drafting e-mails or memos about meetings or events but never sending them to anyone.

I've seen indications in the bits I've reviewed that Shapely and the unnamed witness tried to leverage the investigation into Hunter Biden into an investigation of Joe Biden. When others pushed back on their efforts, their brains interpreted that as a cover up and not as evidence based decisions about the proper scope of the investigation. There are some indications that Shapely and the unnamed witness may have accessed documents that had been withheld by a taint team. If that's true, they may have destroyed Weiss's ability to prosecute crimes for which there is evidence. That would be a shame.

Given our known unknowns in this case, I would keep "overzealous true believers" on the table as a possibility.

[Moksha]

Here is a juicy story with a lot of documented meat and laced with corruption:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM0Y_y6Wjl8

It has to do with the real grift of the Trump kids.

[ceeboo]

Someone is lying indeed.

I really hope you're right (honest to God).

As I see it, if the two FBI whistleblowers are lying, we have is a couple of right-wing politically motivated former FBI agents that should absolutely be held accountable. If they are not lying . . .

Hey Ceebs,

I think it's likely more complicated than that. From what I've read, I think there's a pretty good chance that Shapely and unnamed person he supervised at the IRS had bought in to the conspiracy theory that the deep state was covering up crimes committed by the Biden Crime family at the start of their part of the investigation. When human brains buy in to a conspiracy theory, the way they perceive reality can become very distorted. The brain reinterprets evidence against the theory as evidence of a broader and stronger conspiracy. That would explain some odd things like Shapely drafting e-mails or memos about meetings or events but never sending them to anyone.

I've seen indications in the bits I've reviewed that Shapely and the unnamed witness tried to leverage the investigation into Hunter Biden into an investigation of Joe Biden. When others pushed back on their efforts, their brains interpreted that as a cover up and not as evidence based decisions about the proper scope of the investigation. There are some indications that Shapely and the unnamed witness may have accessed documents that had been withheld by a taint team. If that's true, they may have destroyed Weiss's ability to prosecute crimes for which there is evidence. That would be a shame.

Given our known unknowns in this case, I would keep "overzealous true believers" on the table as a possibility.

Hey Res,

To be fair to you, I want to point out that the above exchange was about 3 weeks ago. I also want to say that I am asking you the coming question because you have earned my respect and I believe you are as even-handed as anyone that I have seen on these boards. Having said that, I also want to be clear that part of my motivation for asking you is that you have politically left views. What I mean by that is that I don't share your political views and I am seeking a different perspective than my own. I really am.

So now we are here, weeks have passed and in addition to other developments, the two IRS whistleblowers have testified to congress.

My question: What is your view on this as of today? (I am not asking for you to be a prophet/seer - I am asking if your view has changed at all)

[Res Ipsa]

Hey Ceebs,

I think it's likely more complicated than that. From what I've read, I think there's a pretty good chance that Shapely and unnamed person he supervised at the IRS had bought in to the conspiracy theory that the deep state was covering up crimes committed by the Biden Crime family at the start of their part of the investigation. When human brains buy in to a conspiracy theory, the way they perceive reality can become very distorted. The brain reinterprets evidence against the theory as evidence of a broader and stronger conspiracy. That would explain some odd things like Shapely drafting e-mails or memos about meetings or events but never sending them to anyone.

I've seen indications in the bits I've reviewed that Shapely and the unnamed witness tried to leverage the investigation into Hunter Biden into an investigation of Joe Biden. When others pushed back on their efforts, their brains interpreted that as a cover up and not as evidence based decisions about the proper scope of the investigation. There are some indications that Shapely and the unnamed witness may have accessed documents that had been withheld by a taint team. If that's true, they may have destroyed Weiss's ability to prosecute crimes for which there is evidence. That would be a shame.

Given our known unknowns in this case, I would keep "overzealous true believers" on the table as a possibility.

Hey Res,

To be fair to you, I want to point out that the above exchange was about 3 weeks ago. I also want to say that I am asking you the coming question because you have earned my respect and I believe you are as even-handed as anyone that I have seen on these boards. Having said that, I also want to be clear that part of my motivation for asking you is that you have politically left views. What I mean by that is that I don't share your political views and I am seeking a different perspective than my own. I really am.

So now we are here, weeks have passed and in addition to other developments, the two IRS whistleblowers have testified to congress.

My question: What is your view on this as of today? (I am not asking for you to be a prophet/seer - I am asking if your view has changed at all)

I haven’t read a transcript of their testimony — only media articles. From what I’ve heard, I’m less inclined to think what was going was overzealous true believers. Shapely assistant does appear to viewed material that the taint team was screened from. But I’m inclined to think that didn’t scare up the prosecution of any crimes.

But there is some pretty stinky stuff with the laptop itself that led the DOJ to rely on the contents of Hunter’s iCloud account and not the laptop itself. When the FBI first said that it had “verified” the laptop, it appears that all they did was check to see if files on the laptop matched those in the iCloud account. But they didn’t do a forensic evaluation to determine whether the laptop has been tampered worth for about 10 months. Part of what Shapely and his assistant were complaining about is that they were never given the report of the forensic examination.

Only three forensic examinations have been done off the laptop itself — one by the FBI and two by the Washington Posts. However none of those reports appear to have been released to the public. However, based on the information that has been released, there was a bunch of odd things that happened with the laptop and the iCloud account that seem consistent with hacking the account. Marcy Wheeler, who is a researcher who digs into this kind of detailed stuff, has posted several articles on the weird history of the laptop on her site, emptywheel.net. I don’t pretend to understand them all, but I have an iCloud account that I use for backup and I can’t imagine doing the things that were done with the laptop and the account.

So, what I understand today is more consistent with the FBI determining that the laptop is not trustworthy evidence, and they screened it from Shapely to avoid taunting the case against Hunter.

But that’s just my best guess, and I need to sit down and read a transcript of the testimony to reach any kind of firm conclusions. I try to work off the actual evidence when I can rather rely on media articles.

I’m assuming there are transcripts available, and I’ll try to read them over the weekend. (Because I’m curious.)

[ceeboo]

Hey Res,

To be fair to you, I want to point out that the above exchange was about 3 weeks ago. I also want to say that I am asking you the coming question because you have earned my respect and I believe you are as even-handed as anyone that I have seen on these boards. Having said that, I also want to be clear that part of my motivation for asking you is that you have politically left views. What I mean by that is that I don't share your political views and I am seeking a different perspective than my own. I really am.

So now we are here, weeks have passed and in addition to other developments, the two IRS whistleblowers have testified to congress.

My question: What is your view on this as of today? (I am not asking for you to be a prophet/seer - I am asking if your view has changed at all)

I haven’t read a transcript of their testimony — only media articles. From what I’ve heard, I’m less inclined to think what was going was overzealous true believers. Shapely assistant does appear to viewed material that the taint team was screened from. But I’m inclined to think that didn’t scare up the prosecution of any crimes.

But there is some pretty stinky stuff with the laptop itself that led the DOJ to rely on the contents of Hunter’s iCloud account and not the laptop itself. When the FBI first said that it had “verified” the laptop, it appears that all they did was check to see if files on the laptop matched those in the iCloud account. But they didn’t do a forensic evaluation to determine whether the laptop has been tampered worth for about 10 months. Part of what Shapely and his assistant were complaining about is that they were never given the report of the forensic examination.

Only three forensic examinations have been done off the laptop itself — one by the FBI and two by the Washington Posts. However none of those reports appear to have been released to the public. However, based on the information that has been released, there was a bunch of odd things that happened with the laptop and the iCloud account that seem consistent with hacking the account. Marcy Wheeler, who is a researcher who digs into this kind of detailed stuff, has posted several articles on the weird history of the laptop on her site, emptywheel.net. I don’t pretend to understand them all, but I have an iCloud account that I use for backup and I can’t imagine doing the things that were done with the laptop and the account.

So, what I understand today is more consistent with the FBI determining that the laptop is not trustworthy evidence, and they screened it from Shapely to avoid taunting the case against Hunter.

But that’s just my best guess, and I need to sit down and read a transcript of the testimony to reach any kind of firm conclusions. I try to work off the actual evidence when I can rather rely on media articles.

I’m assuming there are transcripts available, and I’ll try to read them over the weekend. (Because I’m curious.)

Thanks, Res. I appreciate you offering your perspective.

If you get a chance to read the transcripts, and if you want to say more after reading them, I would be interested in hearing it.

Thanks again!